Date: Mon 26 May 2003 - 22:09:53 GMT
> > From: "Wade T. Smith" <email@example.com>
> > On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 02:58 PM, Gudmundur wrote:
> > > But if it weren't for an existing interpretative context
> > > (scientists' minds and other paraphernalia) published genes would
> > > not mean anything to anyone. Similarly, for DNA to convey any
> > > information there has to be the interpretative environment of the
> > > cell. So, a more accurate view of information is to see it as
> > > emerging when some system (scientist, cell, etc.) interprets a
> > > series of signifiers/signs (DNA, letters, etc.).
> > And there it is.
> This is why the term "information storage" is incoherent.
Yeah, such things as minds and movies and books and records and cd's and tapes and computers and maps and schematics just don't make sense, do they?
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 26 May 2003 - 22:15:18 GMT